if Germany can go solar, why can't the US?

Post Reply New Topic

actually nuclear power has had the safest track record of all energy sources including solar and wind

I was talking about oil and nuclear in combination, but I don't believe it. I think that's propaganda from the nuclear industry. I seriously don't think solar pannels and wind generators have caused more fatalities than fukushima and chernobyll. Those tend to be skewed stats, because they only account for initial fatalities on site. They don't account for cancer or leukemia or radiation sickness that results from contamination. Because the mining operations of ore tend to be safer, and less plants are run, there's less fatalities and injuries, initially than what goes on in coal mining and coal plant operation. However, the material is more toxic, so you may have workers and people in surrounding communities who die of illnesses related to radiation related exposure that never get accounted for.

As for wind and solar, its such a fringe form of energy production that I doubt that work related fatalities measure up to nucleear related fatalities. Neither put pollution into the environment durring operation, so communities aren't going to get any serious, fatal illnesses from it. People who get headaches from it just need some aspirin. Its not a long term illness like leukemia or black lung, and its arguably psychosomatic in nature.

the oil and nuclear industry are not a combination and its a fact that nuclear energy has the least deaths every year by far
the second someone dies at a nuclear plant its on the news for months

Just wait for fossil fuels and uranium to run out. Any surviving humans, by definition, will have gone 100% renewable.

I am hoping by then we will have something far better and there's all that asteroid mining. It's not a matter of being bleak. People just have to quit being complacent and work on it. The universe has everything we need. Much. much more than we need, in fact.

+1

Another thing to consider is that it might make sense to save some of the nuclear fuel for spacecraft. I vaguely remember hearing that we had a 200 yeaar supply, or something like that, but it's easy to burn through that amount of energy if you're sending heavy stuff to other planets or farther. The benefit, as you mentioned, is that there's a lot more out there

yeah thats not going to happen in many many lifetimes
fossil fuels are continuously forming and we have more coal than we know what to do with and uranium is old school for nuclear power

I wasn't saying that they were branches of a common industry. I just lumped them together saying that both in tandem have probably done more environmental dammage than wind power (due to the toxic nature of oil spills and nuclear meltdowns). I've seen pictures and video of animals suffocating in oil and Ukrainian infants born without eyes, and I honestly cannot think, in my rational mind, that an accident from wind or solar could result in anything close to that. I also explained why the statistics (often cited by the nuclear industry about its own safety) are skewed. Its not a fact. Its validity is arguable, and its only reasonable to question it. You're just finding minor points of contention to argue. Seeing that you really don't care to have discourse and just want to state your opinion, I'm not going to reply anymore. This is just a waste of time.

I have a solar electric system on my house. With lots of energy-saving modifications, I'm actually a contributor to the grid. My home is in Arizona. The solar system and modifications cost $42,000 and I save more than $3,600 per year. So, it's a fairly good investment. Most people sped the extra money on granite counter tops and crap like that.

the deaths from oil are numerous but the deaths from nuclear are few and far between
the Chernobyl reactor was a terrible reactor even by soviet standards and they were preforming unnecessary test like turning off all the pumps for the water for the reactor

there are way better nuclear reactors that dont use uranium. the only reason uranium reactors got used in the first place was to make bombs

Nuclear works for me and so does hydroelectric. I don't know how Germany is actually able to utilise the sun for energy. Last time I checked, northern Europe was too cloudy for that.

Germany is also way farther north than most of the US. Neither Chicago nor New York City are as far north as Milan, Italy. Bremen, Germany is farther north than Calgary, Alberta. We think that the northern US gets dark in the winter, but northern Europe is worse.

I wish Australia was doing more since we are the sunniest place on the planet. My parents have panels on their roof.

In reference to the subject, I think the German energy policy is grossly irresponsible for two reasons. By shutting down all their nuclear plants, they have:

1.) Increased their CO2 output by relying more heavily on coal-fired power plants to compensate for the loss of nuclear power.
2.) Put themselves politically at the mercy of Russia due to fear that Russia will interfere with their access to natural gas if they don't dance to the Russians' tune.

Whilst this is a real problem, it can be averted by placing wind farms carefully.

But yes, nuclear is the future. Personally I like the idea of people having their own energy generation as well.

Very good points. In reference to point 2, Germany has economically burdened itself with socialism to the extent they may not be viable opposing the Russians in Cold War II, so they will have to live according to Russian dictates.

That said, I have a German inverter on my solar system and it works very well.